Lisabob

Wow, two pages of comments, all with the same basic recommendation. That should tell you something!

TWO, I disagree to some extent. The boy is 14. He is new to Venturing, as apparently is his mom. They are still trying to figure out how this all works. While I agree that self-sufficiency and individual responsibility are traits that Venturers should be working to develop, I also know a good many 14 year olds (even those who are well acquainted with how BSA programs work) who aren't all the way there yet. And in a Crew, 14 year olds are on the youngest end of the scale. Just as we don't expect (in a troop) the 11 year olds to have fully grasped the concepts that a 17 year old should grasp, in a crew the 14 year olds are still the young-uns and shouldn't be expected to be as functionally independent as the 20 year olds. So: combine new membership with young-ish age and (at best) Crew leaders who may not be completely trained themselves, and I think this kid's mom has some very reasonable concerns here. Hopefully, all of this boils down to some miscommunication and inadvertent errors. I hope that VentureMom will let us know how everything turned out.

"The one thing I'm really expecting is that I'm going to experience a strip search before I die." pack...heh heh. This, alone, is good reason for all of us to vote Democratic - because, really, thinking about some of our fellow citizens & residents, do we honestly want to inflict the sight of certain naked bodies on the police? In the future, this will be a major down-side to becoming a police officer (NO! DON'T MAKE ME DO ANOTHER UNWARRANTED CAVITY SEARCH! MY EYES! THE PAIN!) And I venture to guess that far fewer Democratically-nominated SCOTUS justices than Republican-nominated ones would rule in favor of strip-searches-for-all.

Yes I think he does (and I say that as an ardent Democrat who wants Obama to win). A lot of Dems are pretty disenchanted with Obama's relatively centrist policies, especially on the wars in Iraq & Afghanistan, on (not) closing Gitmo, on civil liberties issues. A lot of people who aren't really political at all voted in the last election based largely on Obama's charisma were disappointed to discover that Obama is, after all, a politician. A lot of independents who might have voted for McCain, had he chosen somebody other than Palin as a running mate, ended up voting for Obama instead. This time around, Obama has to scare his base enough with the Romney boogey man, to convince them to get out there and vote for him even if they are disenchanted. (It sure would help, if Romney picks Santorum or Gingrich (ha!) as his veep) He will have a much harder time getting the usually-disengaged and non-political idealists back to the polls, so he'll need to pick up some other groups instead. Or, maybe he's counting on the Republican base being so luke-warm about Romney that Republican and right-leaning independent turnout will be lower than usual. But this isn't a bet I'd want to make. And I think a lot of "Reagan Democrats" might end up being "Romney Democrats," too. So, John-in-KC - if you won't vote for Romney and he ends up as the Republican candidate, what will you do? Stay home? Vote Obama (ha! again!)? Vote 3rd party? (This message has been edited by lisabob)

excuse me, what??? Please clarify what your point was. Who here has said that this is acceptable behavior? And this specific incident has nothing to do with voter intimidation.

You know, it would be nice if the BSA had a functional website and an online training system that didn't freeze, fail to record completed online trainings, etc. I'm not opposed to twitter but it doesn't seem like the most pressing online need that the BSA has.

SRBeaver, what would it take to convince you that the new black panthers are not a mainstream group? Even Jesse Jackson has objected to their particular brand of vigilante justice. If you want to talk about crackpots and extremists, every side has them. There are, for example, two people in MI who just got off on domestic terrorism charges. Their lawyers argued successfully that just because they collected a stockpile of weapons, and had a plan to attack police in order to start a white supremacist revolution and reclaim America, and were key figures in a white power group in the region, that they were primarily "big talkers" who didn't actually mean to attack anybody. That does not mean that all white people feel this way. So why is the NBP statement (ridiculous as I believe it is) a reflection of anything, other than fringe groups? If you read it as anything else, I think you're way off base.

OK so not broad daylight. Doesn't change the rest of it, though, so let me repeat: That does not change the undisputed FACT that he fatally shot an unarmed child, after following him around the neighborhood without much of a reason. ---------This is a somewhat different way of thinking about things---- I live in MI, where this same thing could easily have happened. Sadly, I have no difficulty imagining this. Statistically speaking, the major metro area that I live near is one of the most racially segregated areas in the country and lots of people harbor a great many stereotypes about each other, partly in result of that segregation. On a personal level, one major reason my son (and I) changed troops about a year ago is that the folks in his former troop were prone to holding - and modeling - all kinds of racist views/speech/actions about others. When it got to the point of adults defending a boy who was repeatedly engaging in neo-Nazi white supremacist speech directed at the only minority kid in the troop, we had enough. Similar experiences in the local public school system caused us to decide to send our child to school in a more diverse environment. There were very few black families in the area, and my son came home from school with some pretty horrible stories about the things that kids were doing and saying to the very few black students. Several teachers more or less verified these stories and basically said there wasn't much they felt they could do about it. I only wish we had moved my son out of that environment sooner. Living here as I do, and given that I teach political science, I frequently teach a segment of a course on civil rights movements. As part of that we explore this region's postwar history of "defended communities" to better understand how and why neighborhoods today remain so strongly racially segregated. From the 1940s-70s many neighborhoods established "community boosters" or "development associations" whose sole and explicit purpose was to keep black people out (and sometimes, Jewish people too). They used violence, intimidation, and fear mongering to do it, and it worked quite well. Many of these groups set up **neighborhood watch** groups, allegedly to protect property and deter petty crime, but in fact (and this is very well documented), these groups frequently engaged in and encouraged vandalism and worse (arson) of properties owned by blacks, or by whites who were accused of being too sympathetic toward blacks. In some cases these groups had regular armed patrols that circulated neighborhoods at night. Now when I teach that segment of the course, most of my white students and some (but not most) of my non-white students are totally shocked. My white students tend to say "yeah but that was years ago. Things are different today." Many of my black students have family stories that have been handed down by their grandparents, parents, aunts and uncles about something like this that happened to them, so today's kids in the black community around here tend to know something about this, even though we're talking about a time decades before most of them were born. Right now, I am wondering how different things really are, today, and whether the whole concept of "neighborhood watch" groups is just too deeply flawed by history. If neighborhood watch members have a right to do what Zimmerman did (by which I mean following around people who they deem are "suspicious" in large part because they simply look different) then what message does that send? It seems to me that to be a young black male and to do nothing but walk in a white neighborhood is as dangerous today in some places, as it would have been in, say, Dearborn, MI in the 1950s. So I suspect that some of the upset about this whole situation is that a lot of folks aren't seeing this as part of a larger picture. It is a terrible tragedy that this one child was killed, when all of this might have been avoided if the adult involved hadn't been armed and following him around in the first place. And it is an even bigger issue that we don't know or understand others' fears and experiences, which might lead to very different reactions and seeing this as part of an on-going, historically rooted, problem.

one of the things I remember having to try to explain to my (then) early/mid-teen son is that there's a balance between being truthful, and being tactful, and that they aren't necessarily mutually exclusive. For a while, he was prone to saying the most brutally truthful things he thought, and when others would get upset, he'd respond with "what, I'm just being honest!" Thankfully, he seems to have figured out that one doesn't need to voice every thought one has on a subject, or at least that there may be better and worse times, places, and ways, to say the same thing.

What new "fact" would this be. What I think you're implying is that you don't like that I haven't simply absorbed every allegation made by people who may know Zimmerman, but who weren't there and are speaking, as it were, on background. At best, this is a character witness, not fact. So his neighbor says he's not a racist, or his kindergarten teacher says he always colored inside the lines, whatever. That does not change the undisputed FACT that he fatally shot an unarmed child, after following him around the neighborhood without much of a reason. It is true that I remain quite skeptical of the story his friends and family are now suggesting regarding what happened next, but frankly that is a side issue. Whatever might or might not have happened after he was told to leave the kid alone and let the police handle it, NONE of this would have occurred if he hadn't been riding around armed and evidently, ridiculously suspicious of a child who happened to be walking down the street. I'm leaving it for the time being.

pack, very good points. But then we also know that "guns don't kill people." Right? Eamonn, what to say? Probably all of us do or have struggled with our perceptions of 'others,' if we are honest about it. As far as I can tell, that isn't limited to whites. Media sensationalism doesn't help much. But there is a difference, to my mind, between recognizing a momentary (and perhaps irrational) thought, and paranoia and taking action on ungrounded fears. As a parallel: Maybe this is not so different from the notion that courage isn't a lack of fear, but about taking the right actions even in the face of fear.

I'm sorry, but shooting an unarmed child at point blank range in broad daylight does not fit with my definition of "victim." Unless you are referring to the child who was shot and killed. "a good citizen would understand that in a new neighborhood the neighborhood watch wouldn't know who they were and they might stick out and thus come under observation" As for this, it sounds like blaming the victim to me! Since when is a child simply walking down the street enough justification for armed adults to start following him around? Are we so afraid of youth? What does that suggest about our culture? Should all of us assume that if we dare to stray into a neighborhood where not every person knows us, that we might be shot? Heck, I had better never leave my house again, and I shouldn't allow my child outside, ever. There's strangers in my neighborhood, and some of them are my neighbors. They could shoot us. Or maybe I should shoot them first, ask questions later? Stranger danger, indeed.

My son is 17. He is a child, MY child, and his family loves him quite a lot. He owns a hoodie or two. You might see him walking down the street. He doesn't own or have a gun and is probably just coming home from visiting his friends. He is harmless. Especially if you have a gun, you probably scare him far more than he scares you. Please don't shoot him. That's what this comes down to.

"To get back on topic, why did this murder generate so much publicity?" And can somebody tell me under what circumstances a child's murder should NOT have our attention? That could have been my child, or yours, or any of the boys any of us have worked with in scouting, in our communities, in churches, in schools, etc., over the years. This unarmed child was shot at point blank range by a man who chased him through the neighborhood in a car, even after being told by officials to leave him alone. Whatever else did or did not happen, that much is pretty much undisputed, and by itself, should be enough to spur grave concerns in our society. This was a terrible and utterly senseless tragedy.

Yep, heaven forbid we have moms & sons or dads & daughters involved in an elementary school-aged youth program. ~rolls eyes~ See, and this is exactly why I'm not thrilled with the notion of a joint cub/AHG program. Already there are assumptions about cultural (familial, gender) norms that must be coming at least in part from the AHG side of things, because reality is that an awful lot of our cub leaders are moms, folks.

CORs wanting to be heard can be a good thing, if the COR has a legit complaint and understands the implications for the unit(s) they represent. It can be a bad thing, if the COR is hot-headed, doesn't understand how such a change will reverberate through the unit(s), fails to understand the program the CO sponsors, and/or has an illegitimate gripe. In the first case, I'm for it (in general). Perhaps it will encourage one or both councils in question to take CO input more seriously. In the second case, not so much. In either case, it sounds like a meeting with the COR, unit leaders, and IH is in order to decide upon a common strategy and make sure everyone's voices are heard WITHIN the CO, not just between the COR and council.

Well I dunno, folks. I teach a lot of first & second year college students, who are typically 18-19-20 years old. "Kids these days"...sure, some of them ARE lazy ingrates who can't tell up from down. And yep, I've had a few calls from mommies and daddies, trying to tell me how I will treat their little darlings (yeah, that works....heh heh). But in general, I really have a lot of respect for these young adults. They are full of curiosity about the world and their place in it. I have had the pleasure of having many students who are bright, engaged, thoughtful, and extremely hard working. I've taught many who are in school, and succeeding, despite tremendous obstacles in their lives. I have many former students who went on to do great things, and whose experiences I continue to use as motivation and examples for my current students. So I kind of think it is like any group - you've got the strong, motivated types, and then you've got some slackers who haven't figured it out yet. Don't tell me that this wasn't true "back in the day" when you all were young, too? I know for sure that it was for my generation.

Seattle, what about non-Christian families in your pack? Or families that are Christian, but don't subscribe to the AHG view of things? I hear you that you're looking for efficiencies, but you're asking for difficulty here and could end up sowing divisions within your pack.

PappaDaddy: If there are situations in which a white youth is shot and killed in the light of day for no apparent reason and the shooter's actions, identity, and current location are not in question, and more than a month after the shooting that shooter hasn't yet been arrested, well yes, that would be wrong, too. But that's not the story most of the time, now is it? SRBeaver, I'll grant you that media bias exists, but I don't think that's a decent explanation for much here. For one thing, it assumes that liberals are somehow pro-black and anti-white to the point of covering up relevant (or irrelevant) details that are bound to come out anyway, eventually. If anything, the media in the US has historically been pro-white and anti-color in its coverage and portrayal of crimes, especially "vigilante" sorts of crimes. Anyway, this info is being reported right now on both CNN and Fox. Heck, I bet the news outlets are salivating, because all this sensationalism will sell. Call me cynical but I think the media (of all biases) are MORE likely to report every breathless claim and detail, true, half-true, or not-true, to try to keep viewers tuned in. And I notice that Rev. Jesse Jackson has spoken out against the New Black Panther "reward," too. So people could, I suppose, jump all over the incendiary and non-mainstream NBP response, pretend that this represents black Americans' views by and large, and completely ignore the fact that many other community leaders (black and white) are speaking out against that response - Or, people could recognize that the NBP is a pretty fringe group whose views probably don't reflect the behavior, thoughts, or desires of most Americans (of any color).

Seattle, it is only your last sentence that gives me pause. You know your pack and your Church better than me, of course. But why this emphasis on "twinning?" Isn't it possible that there are families in your current cub pack who are happy to see the AHG program exist but who do not want to be part of it, themselves? Why force this issue? Why not be content to say "hey, the church has an AHG program, if anybody with daughters is interested" and leave it there? Again, from my perspective: I have no problem with the AHG programs and wish them well as a stand-alone program. I can accept that a CO might sponsor both a cub pack and an AHG group. BUT, as a scout leader and parent of a scout, I want nothing to do with them because I don't believe the same things they do and don't want my child taught what they teach. If a unit I served or that my son was in suddenly decided to "twin" with them, I'd be talking to the CO about it to get them detached again. If the CO was pushing this "twinning," I'd leave. Do you really want to introduce that into your existing cub pack? And if so, why?

"That could have been any of our children, any one of our scouts, out walking while wearing "suspicious" clothing." This is what I think people are missing. Since when is it acceptable (under any condition) to follow, corner, and shoot a child (or an adult either) just because he's wearing a hoodie? Are people familiar with the history of "defended communities" from northern city suburbs in the 1950s & 60s? How is what this man in FL did, any different? And does anybody at all think that (all other conditions being equal) if the child had been white, and the shooter black, we'd even be talking about how the shooter hadn't been arrested yet, a month after the murder?

Scoutfish, my understanding of the cub scouting program as used in LDS settings is that advancement from cubs to boy scouts (and within cubs, too) is strictly tied to age. Consequently, while this is not required by the BSA, it is a hard and fast feature of how most LDS packs and troops operate. (I'm sure someone will correct me, if I've misconstrued this.) kidsntow, you can't undo what's already more or less a done deal (by your description). Work with what you can control, to improve these boys' preparedness for the next step in scouting.

I realize you're under some time pressure, but I'd say, let them enjoy the hike for the sake of the hike - don't make it a quiz hike. Explore nature a bit instead. They'll have plenty of opportunity to learn the oath, etc. You don't want them to associate hiking with rote memorization!

Yeah I've run into the elitism thing aimed at cub leaders. It used to really tick me off, until I realized that most of the time, people with that attitude also don't know what they're talking about when it comes to the current cub scout program. If I had a dollar for every crazy half-truth or misconception they spout, I'd be rich. And I love it when you attend a gathering of scouters and some stout fellow has all the Eagles in the room stand up and the rest of us give them a rousing round of applause or something, and then he goes on about the value of Eagles giving back to scouting....blah blah blah blah blah. This is not to diminish the worth of recognition or the value of the rank. On the other hand, lots of people who weren't Eagles "give back" to scouting in a bunch of ways. Their service also shouldn't be diminished. And there does come a point, I think, where something earned as a youth shouldn't be the defining focal point of an adult's service career. Oh and by the way, my first couple of questions are usually: 1. How many kids do you have in scouting? 2. How do they like the program? (This message has been edited by lisabob)

Just to be clear here, I'm not advocating putting the "genie back in the bottle" with regard to women's roles in boy scouting. I recognize that others may see this differently than I do, though. For the purposes of this thread, I'm talking about ONE merit badge, one that's required for Eagle, and one that (around here) is counseled almost entirely by women. It's interesting (to me) to hear what the norm is elsewhere, and people's thoughts on why these norms might exist.